JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Petitioner Banwari Lal Sharma has preferred this misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 24.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.20, Jaipur Metro Head quarter Chomu, in criminal revision petition No. 15/15 (Banwari Lal v. State of Raj. & Anr.) whereby leaned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 22, Jaipur Metropolitan, Head quarter Chomu in case No. 1689/2013 (Kailash Chand v. Banwari Lal Sharma) by which learned Magistrate rejected the application of petitioner accused for sending the cheque for ascertaining the hand writing on disputed cheque by FSL. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint is pending against the petitioner accused before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.22, Jaipur Metropolitan, Head quarter Chomu f or dishonouring of cheque amount of Rs.11,50,000/. During pendency of trial. Petitioner accused moved an application under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 273(2) of Cr.P.C. for sending the cheque in question to FSL for ascertaining the handwriting which was dismissed by the learned trial court with cost of Rs.200/- vide order dated 11.02.2015 (Annexure-2), the said order assailed in revision petition which was also resulted into dismissal vide impugned order dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure-1): 3. Aggrieved by both these orders, petitioner accused preferred this misc. petition before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cheque was stolen by the respondent complainant, thereafter, he himself filled blank columns of the cheque and mentioned date as 24.02.2011 and amount was filled as Rs.50,000/-, thereafter, it was interpolated by 24.12.2011 and Rs.11,50,000/- which is evident from the expert report which was submitted by the petitioner accused before the learned trial court, therefore, the cheque may be sent for ascertaining the handwriting interpolation to FSL. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 complainant submits that matter is at the stage of defence evidence and petitioner can produce his witness as defence evidence, therefore, no question arises for sending cheque in dispute to FSL. He further submits that petitioner has returned the cheque due to interpolation, the Bank dishonoured the cheque due to "insufficient funds", there fore, no question arises for sending cheque to FSL. 6. I have considered the submissions made at bar and also went through the (fact) available on record. He further submits that petitioner has returned the cheque due to interpolation, the Bank dishonoured the cheque due to "insufficient funds", there fore, no question arises for sending cheque to FSL. 6. I have considered the submissions made at bar and also went through the (fact) available on record. 7. Since, the matter is at the stage of defence evidence and the case is based on private criminal complaint, therefore, petitioner accused can produce the handwriting expert before the court and can apply before the trial court for examination of cheque in question by the expert and after seeking such permission, expert so produced can examine cheque and prepare his report regarding the interpolation in handwriting. The report "of expert can also be submitted before the court and thereafter that expert can be examined as defence witness by the petitioner accused himself. Therefore, no question arises for sending the cheque for FSL. Similarly, petitioner can also apply for summoning the concerned bank officials to ascertaining interpolation of the cheque. 8. In view of it, no interference called in the impugned order and this misc. petition is disposed of accordingly.